You're right, it did start that way. And then the matter of legal responsibility was brought up; one person even posed the question, "Does the project owe its contributors anything?", and gave a direct and unequivocal response: "Legally, no." (Side note: that person was you.) And to say that is to say something that is simply not true—as untrue as any statement now about my being confused about whether legal responsibility was being discussed.
You can't rewrite history. (And we shouldn't have to replay all this. It's still all there to see...)
I don't know why you're so willfully misreading this.
The project doesn't owe the contributors anything legally in terms of recognition (or payment, etc.) which was the subject being discussed. That's quite obvious from the context.
Nobody ever brought up legal ownership of content at all -- that's 100% your misinterpretation.
It's kind of amazing how you misunderstand comments and then go on to insult others for supposedly misunderstanding comments... and then proceed to then do it all over a second time! Amusingly ironic. Better luck in the future, my friend... ;)
Sorry, that's not going to work. The comment you responded to outright said these things:
- "MDN isn't yours."
- "Do they owe you something?'
- "You're not owed anything."
... and your response? "Legally, no"—but of course the problem with that response, again, is that legally, yes; they do owe something.
So try rewriting the context and all the rhetorical gerrymandering you want, but it doesn't change that the fact that (a) there was a discussion in terms of legal responsibilities and (b) in that discussion about those responsibilities, your comments were incorrect. Being wrong because of a slip-up is fine—and it wasn't even wholly your slip-up; you were yes-anding someone else's comment. But this scrambling now to double down after it's pointed out and the subsequent projection—particularly in your last paragraph here—is more than a little annoying to encounter.
> The project doesn't owe the contributors anything legally in terms of recognition
... except they do, for the reasons already stated. Maybe there's some attempt at sleight of hand in your choice of the word "recognition" here (i.e., as distinct from "attribution", but even then, it's not clear whether any argument there, if there is one, would even hold up)—but it's not really important. Because "attribution" is the word that was used, attribution is what the BY part of CC-BY-SA stands for, and attribution is what's required by that license—yes, legally.
It's pretty bewildering that you think you have an argument here.
They're mean that you have completely misinterpreted the conversation, and apparently continue to do so.
The discussion started about moral responsibility. You're the only one confusing it with legal responsibility. And that's pretty much that.